Even as its forces prepare to launch a full-scale offensive into Gaza City, several long-standing supporters of Israel — including Australia, Canada, France and the UK — are threatening to recognize a Palestinian state, joining nearly 150 other nations. Israeli leaders have reacted furiously, taking steps to render any such entity unviable. While the former effort is unhelpful, the latter would be disastrous to Israel’s long-term security. The US should help its ally see the difference.
Frustration over the swelling pressure campaign is understandable. Recognition is aimed at persuading Israel to accept a ceasefire in Gaza and keeping alive the possibility of a two-state solution. In fact, Western leaders are mostly appeasing domestic constituencies outraged by the suffering of ordinary Gazans. Israelis have a right to wonder why they are not putting equal effort into forcing Hamas to release its hostages and disarm, or leaning on the Palestinian Authority to reform.
Still, any recognition would be almost entirely symbolic. The same cannot be said for Israeli moves to expand settlements — including in an area known as E1 that would split Palestinian-held parts of the West Bank in two — and potentially annex swathes of the territory.
Fast-tracking construction of the new settlements last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu vowed “there will never be a Palestinian state.”
The Oct. 7, 2023, attacks prove that Israel cannot live side by side with a Palestinian-run territory, which would inevitably become a “springboard for terror,” he said.
More than 70 percent of Jewish Israelis agree.
What proponents of a “one-state solution” rarely address is what happens to the 5 million Palestinians who would be included within it. If they are not granted full citizenship — something more outspoken Israeli officials have ruled out — Israel risks becoming the apartheid state critics allege it is already. Expelling the population would amount to ethnic cleansing. Even voluntary mass departures would destabilize neighbors Jordan and Egypt. Plans to ship Gazans to war-torn African countries are, at best, far-fetched.
Rather than quelling terrorist attacks, permanently suppressing Palestinian aspirations would likely fuel an endless insurgency. Most important, it would further isolate Israel and could intensify anti-Semitism globally. Outright annexation could lead to sanctions by the EU and others in the West. Even in the US, support for Israel is plummeting among Democrats and younger Republicans. Under a future administration, unquestioned US backing cannot be assumed.
In the region, Israel would almost certainly forfeit any hope of expanding the Abraham Accords to Saudi Arabia and other neighbors, especially after its recent airstrike on Hamas leaders in Qatar. The United Arab Emirates has already declared that annexation is a “red line,” implying that the move could jeopardize its ties with the Jewish state. The Saudi Arabians have long made clear they would not normalize relations absent some credible pathway to a two-state solution.
Having friends secures Israel’s place in the region and the world, as the remarkable coordinated response to Iranian missile barrages should have made clear. Rather than granting Israel a blank check, as some US officials would seem to prefer, Washington ought to remind its ally that keeping open the possibility of a Palestinian state is crucial to that wider acceptance. It should reaffirm its traditional opposition to new settlements or unilateral declarations of sovereignty over parts of the West Bank.
US officials could also usefully remind Western nations that no Palestinian state would be viable without Israeli buy-in. Rather than engaging in political stunts that would only harm the people they claim to be helping, they should work with Arab governments to force Hamas to disarm and surrender administration of Gaza, and to reform the Palestinian Authority — ushering in new, more accountable leadership, shrinking a bloated civil service, upgrading the security services, opening up the economy and overhauling the education system.
As should be painfully clear by now, there are no shortcuts to peace.
The Editorial Board publishes the views of the editors across a range of national and global affairs.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS